Cultural supervision 2.0: with courage, but still without digital glasses

About the NVTC annual conference and the next phase of governance in the cultural sector

Anyone who has followed the news about the cultural sector in recent years cannot help but be struck by the impression that supervision is no longer a side issue, but plays a leading role. Incidents, integrity issues, administrative crises and dysfunctional work cultures have put pressure on the self-evident moral advantage of cultural institutions. A sector that likes to present itself as progressive and socially conscious often appears to be administratively vulnerable., sometimes naive and often insufficiently prepared for what happens when things really go wrong.

 The NVTC annual conference showed that vulnerability is now widely recognised. Supervision is no longer a precondition, but a topic of discussion. Not only when the pressure mounts, but also preventively. There is more serious discussion about role consistency, responsibilities and the limits of informal culture. The tone is less non-committal than it was a few years ago; the urgency is shared.

 At the same time, it became clear how big the gap is between recognition and capacity to act. Many regulators and administrators know that things need to change, but are still searching for ways to do so. What do you do when signals are vague, interests clash and public pressure mounts faster than internal decision-making can keep up? And how do you prevent regulators from only taking action when a crisis is already inevitable? How do you navigate through all the codes, legislation and roles in the limited time you have available?

 What was not said, but was present everywhere

That tension was palpable throughout the conference. Even though the most striking negative examples of inadequate supervision — such as the Nederlands Fotomuseum, Internationaal Theater Amsterdam and the Groninger Museum — were not explicitly discussed on stage, they were implicitly present everywhere. In conversations in the corridors, during coffee breaks and in casual remarks between participants. As a shared reference. As a warning. And sometimes also as an uncomfortable mirror: this could happen to us too.

 The conference deliberately chose a different approach. The focus was not on the incident, but on the structure.. Not blame or reckoning, but professionalisation. And not the question of who failed, but why supervision in this sector so often only escalates when the pressure is already at its peak.

 That choice was enlightening. It made it clear that many problems do not arise from ill will or individual incompetence, but from systemic vulnerability. From unclear roles. From the lack of explicit agreements on escalation. From the lack of the right information and tools. And from a management culture that has long relied on good intentions and mutual trust.

 What stood out was not only what was discussed, but also what was hardly mentioned: how supervision relates to an environment in which signals are emerging ever more rapidly, issues are developing at an accelerated pace and reputational damage often occurs before formal governance mechanisms have been activated. The digital world is a major accelerator.

The need for tightening

 NVTC chairwoman Jurenne Hooi set the tone in her opening speech. Supervisors, she argued, are not merely controllers of administrators, but “guardians of trust in the cultural sector”. That trust is under pressure. “The incidents are piling up,” she said. “Society is watching critically. The media are ready to judge and condemn.” Supervision is not a casual part-time job, but a profession — and one that requires continuous professionalisation.

 That message was widely recognised. Not only by regulators, but also by directors who openly acknowledged how vulnerable their organisations had become. It was not uncommon for people to be surprised by the speed with which issues escalated. Often via traditional or social media, sometimes via anonymous reports, and almost always faster than existing consultation and decision-making structures could keep up with.

 At the same time, it became clear how uncomfortable this tightening of the rules feels. After all, stricter supervision affects autonomy, trust and informal manners that are deeply ingrained in many cultural organisations. It is precisely in areas where the sector likes to distinguish itself from ‘the business world’ that the debate about rules, role consistency and power becomes contentious.

Without meaning, there is no supervision

 The conference therefore did not begin with rules, but with meaning. Chairwoman Naeeda Aurangzeb opened with a personal story that proved to be very telling. She spoke about a work experience placement at Donner bookshop when she was thirteen, about the moment she recognised a poet “from home” in Dutch, and about a poem she learned by heart that afternoon. “I was moved,” she said. Not because she understood it completely, but because two worlds came together in one text.

 That anecdote was not a casual opening remark. It was a reminder of the primary mandate of cultural institutions: giving meaning, creating public value, enabling recognition. Aurangzeb posed the question that often disappears behind agendas and notes in boardrooms: when was the last time art truly moved you — outside of your own organisation?

 This is at the heart of the governance issue. For supervision that becomes detached from that artistic and social mandate degenerates into management without a moral compass. But art without robust supervision becomes a sanctuary without guardrails. The conference oscillated between these two extremes throughout the day.

Recognition without self-reflection

The panel discussion on governance and supervision made one thing abundantly clear: there is no single definition of what constitutes ‘good supervision’. Some participants spoke with visible pride about their own supervisory boards. “I actually felt quite proud of my own supervisory board,” said one director, immediately adding that there is always room for improvement.

 Others reacted with surprise. “I automatically assumed that the sector was fairly well organised,” said one regulator. “But I was initially quite disappointed.” It wasn't about big principles, but about basic issues: unclear division of responsibilities, lack of supervisory vision, councils that hardly know how to act when something really goes wrong.

 What was striking was The paradox: almost everyone recognised the problem, but hardly anyone recognised themselves in it. It was always about the sector, rarely about us. That tension — between individual reasonableness and collective vulnerability — was a recurring theme throughout the day. As individuals, regulators are extremely vulnerable; they are the ones who have to ensure that nothing goes wrong, and they bear the brunt of the blame if that turns out not to be the case.

The fundamentals are not in order

This tension was sharply pointed out by Kristel Baele, chair of the Council for Culture. Her message was clear and unflattering.: “The fundamentals are not in order.” Not in an abstract sense, but in concrete, verifiable matters. Lack of retirement schedules. Councils whose composition can only be ascertained by searching websites. Transparent recruitment that is more promise than practice.

 A supervisory vision, Baele emphasised, is often seen as a bureaucratic burden, whereas in reality it is an essential discussion tool. A way to make explicit what people expect from each other, and above all: who is responsible for what. It is precisely this that often appears to be strangely vague in the cultural sector.

 In doing so, she pointed to structural problems: conflicts of interest, one-sided boards, and a persistent shortage of young talent who even know how to find their way into supervisory roles. The recommendations of the Council for Culture are therefore broad: from better training and peer review to reconsidering legal forms and more explicitly defining the supervisory board's role as employer..

 The advice is careful, thorough and substantively strong. But it is precisely this richness that raises a new problem.

When governance becomes a stack

Because how do you turn all that well-intentioned advice into something manageable? Governance Code for Culture, Fair Practice Code, recommendations from the Council for Culture, sectoral guidelines, training courses, peer review programmes — each with its own logic, language and priority. Together, they do not form a compass, but a pile.

 This was implicitly acknowledged during the conference. Several speakers pointed out that knowledge evaporates quickly in crisis situations. When anonymous signals emerge or the press calls, what matters is not whether you can quote the code, but whether you can endure the conflict without resorting to reflexes.

Baele summed it up succinctly with a sentence that should really be displayed above every boardroom: “Make sure you are not caught off guard.” And that comes with an uncomfortable truth: As a supervisor, you have a duty to gather information that goes beyond reading documents. Supervision is about behaviour and preparation, not documentation.

From analysis to tool — not to solution

That's when I felt the need for something other than yet another report. Not more text, but more overview. Not new standards, but a way to connect existing standards. That's why I built an AI tool for myself that can be used to query governance codes and recent recommendations for consistency, overlap and gaps. Not to take away the need to think, but to structure it. To have discussions based on coherence rather than separate documents. Digital support as a tool — not as a solution.

 In this regard, one distinction is essential. Digital tools and AI applications within governance are supportive in nature, not a replacement for existing responsibilities.. They provide clarity and structure, but do not adopt normative, legal or administrative judgements.

 The blind spot: digital governance

 And that revealed a fundamental blind spot for me at the conference.. There was extensive discussion about culture, behaviour, courage and professionalisation. But hardly any about the digital dimension of governance. About cyber resilience. About data breaches and reputational risks. About the use of AI within institutions. Or about how digital tools can strengthen supervision and governance itself.

 That is remarkable. Especially at a time when crises often start digitally and spread digitally. When a cyber incident can have immediate administrative consequences. And when AI can help with early detection, documentation, scenario analysis and consistent monitoring.

 Perhaps the most accurate diagnosis of this issue did not come from the stage, but from the audience. Metin Celik put it aptly: “The cultural sector is very progressive artistically, but remarkably conservative in its working culture.” That contrast explains a lot. Artistic innovation is self-evident; administrative and digital innovation feels like a threat.

What lies ahead for the digital sector

 The impact of AI and digitisation in the cultural sector will not primarily manifest itself in visions or policy documents, but in day-to-day operations. In how reports are handled, how signals are recognised, how information is shared and how accountability is organised.

 The shift is from reactive to anticipatory working. Not because AI makes decisions, but because patterns become visible earlier. This requires new routines, more explicit agreements and digital skills that become part of professional expertise — including in artistic organisations.

In addition, cyber resilience strikingly underexposed, whereas cultural institutions are vulnerable due to open public environments, limited IT capacity and a strong dependence on external suppliers. A cyber incident is therefore rarely a technical problem alone, but almost always a governance issue — concerning responsibility, preparation and the ability to act when it matters most.

 For management and supervision, this means that digitisation is no longer an IT issue, but an organisational and moral issue. Who uses which tools, for what purpose, and under what supervision?

 In the coming years, the sector will be assessed not only on artistic quality or social value, but also on digital maturity: know what you are doing, know what you are not doing, and know when you need help.

An assignment for NVTC

 At the end of the day, one impression in particular lingered: The NVTC is ready for a serious next phase.. The association has momentum, recognition and support. However, the task at hand requires expansion. To strengthen supervision not only morally and organisationally, but also digitally.

 Not as an end in itself, but as a lever. To reveal patterns. To keep knowledge accessible and affordable. And to make the sector resilient in a world where crises rarely follow existing governance lines.

 The cultural sector has imagination. The challenge now is to apply that imagination to its own governance and supervision. With courage — but from now on also with digital glasses.

Appreciate this article and support Culture Press!!!